state-shared taxes and cities without property taxes: a ... · cities without property taxes...

State-Shared Taxes and Cities WithoutProperty Taxes: A Source of Inequity?

Tennessee Advisory Commissionon Intergovernmental Relations

Staff Report October 2004

TACIRPublication Policy

Staff Information Reports, Staff Briefs, Staff Technical Reports andStaff Working Papers and TACIR Fast Facts are issued to promotethe mission and objectives of the Commission. These reports areintended to share information and research findings relevant toimportant public policy issues in an attempt to promote widerunderstanding.

Only reports clearly labeled as “Commission Reports” represent theofficial position of the Commission. Others are informational.

The Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

226 Capitol Boulevard Building ! Suite 508 ! Nashville, Tennessee 37243Phone: 615.741.3012 ! Fax: 615.532.2443

E-mail: [email protected] ! Website: www.state.tn.us/tacir

State-Shared Taxes and Cities Without

Property Taxes: A Source of Inequity?

TACIR Staff Report

Contributors to this Report

Harry Green, Ph.D.Executive Director

Libby Thurman, M.A.Senior Research Associate

Stan Chervin, Ph.D.Public Finance Consultant

Cliff Lippard, M.P.A.Director of Fiscal Affairs

Teresa GibsonPublications Associate

October 2004

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2

Measuring Equity ............................................................................................... 4

Characteristics of Cities Without Property Taxes ................................................. 5

Cities Without Property Taxes Compared to Cities With Property Taxes ............. 6

Local Government Finances ......................................................................... 8

Services Provided ....................................................................................... 10

Population .................................................................................................. 11

Own-Source Revenue ................................................................................ 12

Importance of State Aid .............................................................................. 14

Services ...................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 15

Bibliography ................................................................................................... 16

Appendices ................................................................................................... 17

Cities Without Property Taxes: A Source of Inequity?

1

Executive SummaryThere are 84 cities in Tennessee that do not levy property taxes.Property taxes are a major source of revenue for cities, and citiesthat do not levy them are limited in the amount of own-sourcerevenue they are able to generate. These cities are also generallymore dependent on state-shared taxes to maintain their currentlevel of spending and they provide fewer services to citizens.Though cities without property taxes do not tax themselves to thesame degree as cities that levy property taxes, all cities receivestate-shared tax distributions based on the same formulas. Thesefactors may indicate an inequity in the state tax sharing process.

TACIR staff has analyzed data from the “1997 Census ofGovernments” (COG 1997) in order to further explore this possibleinequity. Major findings are as follow:

! Cities that do not levy property taxes are generally small.Based on 2003 population figures, 59 of the 84 cities (70%)have populations of 1,500 or less.

! A total of $14,414,336 was distributed to cities withoutproperty taxes in the form of state-shared taxes in 2003(See Appendix 1A).

! Cities without property taxes produce a smaller share ofown-source revenue.1 These cities reported an average of30% of their total general revenue as own-source revenuewhile cities with property taxes reported an average of 52%of their total revenue as own-source revenue.

! Cities without property taxes are more dependent on stateintergovernmental aid than cities with property taxes, basedon the percent of total general revenue derived from stateintergovernmental aid. Cities that do not levy property taxesdepend on state intergovernmental revenue for an average

This studyevaluates howequity and fairnessin state tax sharingis impacted by the84 cities inTennessee that donot levy propertytaxes.

1 Own source revenue includes locally imposed taxes such as business taxes, propertytaxes, sales taxes, and motor vehicle license taxes, as well as other/miscellaneous revenuesuch as fines and forfeits, special assessments, and rents.

2


of 54% of their total general revenue. In contrast, citiesthat do levy property taxes report an average of only 34%.

! Cities that do not levy property taxes provide fewer servicesto citizens. In this study, services are measured based onexpenditure data from COG 1997. Based on the criteriathat a city provides service if it spent any money on a service,cities without property taxes provided an average of 3.1services. Based on the more stringent criteria that a cityprovided a service if it spent 50% or more of the statemedian per capita expenditure on a service, cities withoutproperty taxes provided an average of 2.1 services. Incontrast, cities with property taxes provided an average of4.9 services and 3.9 services, respectively.

! City size does appear to be closely related to the numberof services offered. Still, the variance of services providedamong cities with and without property taxes is very clear.Even the smallest cities with property taxes provided anaverage of more services than the largest cities withoutproperty taxes.

IntroductionCity budgets in Tennessee rely on revenue from several differentsources. A portion of city revenue is derived fromintergovernmental sources, such as state-shared taxes, and aportion of city revenue is locally generated. Property taxesrepresent a significant source of locally generated revenue, or own-source revenue, for cities. However, 84 cities in Tennessee do notlevy property taxes. These cities generally raise less own-sourcerevenue and are more dependent on intergovernmental aid tomaintain their current levels of spending. They also provide fewerservices than do cities that levy property taxes, as a whole. Thoughthese 84 cities do not tax themselves to the same extent as citieswith property taxes, all cities in Tennessee receive state-sharedtax distributions based on the same formulas, with the exception

Cities withoutproperty taxesgenerally raise lessown-sourcerevenue, providefewer services, andare moredependent onstate-shared taxesthan cities that dolevy propertytaxes.


3

of two cities that are categorized as premier resort type cities.2

These facts may represent an inequity in the state tax sharingprocess.

State-shared taxes are used to supplement other forms ofintergovernmental aid and own-source revenue. Own-sourcerevenue includes locally imposed taxes such as business taxes,property taxes, sales taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and other/miscellaneous revenue including user fees, charges, fines andforfeits, and special assessments.3 State-shared taxes help citiesprovide services to their citizens and assist in keeping propertytaxes low. However, are state-shared taxes intended to be acomplete substitute for property taxes? To explore how equityand fairness in state tax sharing is influenced by cities that do notlevy property taxes, TACIR analyzed city data focusing on fiscalperformance and number of services provided.4

The analysis considers:

! Which cities do not levy property taxes?

! How large are cities that do not levy property taxes?

! How many services do they provide to their citizens?

! How much money do they receive in state-shared taxes?

! How are such cities different from those that do levyproperty taxes?

! How do cities without property taxes finance theiroperations?

! Do cities that do not levy property taxes resemble othercities with similar populations?

2 Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. See Green, Naccarato, et al, State Tax Sharing with Cities:Premier Type Resort Cities as Models, TACIR, September 2004 for a discussion of taxsharing with these cities.3Wheel taxes are included in the category of “motor vehicle taxes.”4The main data source for this study is the “1997 Census of Governments” (COG 1997).COG 1997 provides fiscal and employment data for cities, counties, and special districts.See Appendix 2 for further source information.

4


Measuring EquityNeither Tennessee’s constitution nor the Tennessee CodeAnnotated list a specific, over-arching set of criteria to define ormeasure equity in tax distribution. In State Tax Sharing, Fairness,and Local Government Finance in Tennessee (January 2004),TACIR included a section that listed the various reasons behindmost state-local aid programs and principles useful in guiding thedistribution of such aid.5 The Basic Education Program (BEP)represents the preeminent state-local aid program in Tennessee,and stands out as the best example of a Tennessee state-local aidprogram based firmly on three well-recognized tax-sharingprinciples; namely (1) aid should consider need, (2) aid shouldconsider local revenue capacity, and (3) aid should considerlocal effort.6 This report directly addresses one of these factors,effort, as it pertains to state-shared taxes.

Distributions or allocations of state aid to local governments basedon principles of equity are preferable to ones based merely onsome combination of historical and political expediency andcompromise. The reason for this preference is straightforward:changes to distributions based on principles of equity or fairnesscan be evaluated (better or worse) using the same set of principlesused to formulate the original method of distribution; changes todistributions based solely on political comprises can not beevaluated as better or worse, they are simply different.

The existence of guiding principles behind specific aid programdistributions can be found either in explicit language in the originallegislation authorizing a state aid program, the statutes themselves,or implicitly in the detailed procedures used to distribute programfunds. The state property tax relief program is another example(in addition to the BEP) of a program whose distribution is guidedby a clear set of principles. While a modest program in size(approximately $10 million per year), it targets low income elderlyand disabled home owners. Local governments are essentially

5 Pages 21-31 of State Tax Sharing, Fairness, and Local Government Finance in Tennessee.6 All of these factors play a role in either the BEP program cost or the TACIR fiscal capacitymodel, which serves as a component of the BEP model.


5

reimbursed for property taxes they would otherwise lose from thetax exemptions provided by this program.

Assuming that a state-local aid program contains either an explicitor implicit set of objectives or stated clear purpose, the actualdistribution method used to distribute the program aid to localgovernments can be evaluated by analyzing how successfully itlinks the objectives of a program with the actual distributions tolocal governments.

The report that follows focuses on the effect of existing state-localaid programs, specifically state-tax sharing programs, on the localgovernment finances of cities with and without property taxes. Itexamines the relative local tax effort of these cities, their relativedependence on intergovernmental aid, and the level of servicethat they provide to their citizens. It sheds light on the impact ofstate-local tax sharing programs that have few or no clear-cutprinciples behind their construction and that do not account forlocal effort in their distribution schemes, and the possibleunintended consequences that result.

Characteristics of Cities Without PropertyTaxesAs of 2004, there are 84 cities in Tennessee that do not levy aproperty tax.7 The fiscal information analyzed here is based ondata for 79 of these cities.8

As a whole, cities that do not levy property taxes are small.Their populations range from 60 to 17,720.9 Based on 2003population figures, 59 (70%) of the 84 cities without propertytaxes fall under the 1,500 minimum population standard for newincorporations.10 Sixty-seven of the 84 have populations under 2,000.

7 See Appendix 3 to view data on revenue, services provided, and expenditures for allcities without property taxes.8 Bean Station, Coopertown, Pleasant View, and Unicoi are not included in this studybecause they were not incorporated when COG 1997 data was collected. Ramer is notincluded because the data appeared to be erroneous. See Appendix 5 for a map showingthe location of cities without property taxes in Tennessee.9 Source: Department of Economic & Community Development.10 TCA 6-1-201, TCA 6-18-103, TCA 6-30-104, TCA 6-58-101.

6


In FY 2003, cities without property taxes received $14,414,336in state-shared taxes. This amount represents an increase of$3,866,977 from the amount distributed in 1997 when the COG1997 was conducted.11 In 1997 cities without property taxesreceived an average of $130,210. Using the Consumer PriceIndex to adjust for inflation, in 1997 the average state-sharedtax distribution to cities in 2003 dollars was $149,273.12 By2003 the average amount of state-shared taxes received bycities without property taxes had increased to $171,599.13 Whilethe actual COG 1997 data provides figures for state aid, mostof the state aid provided to cities without property taxes consistsof state-shared taxes. This study does not evaluate state-sharedtaxes received specifically, but does evaluate stateintergovernmental aid. State intergovernmental aid is the sumof state grants-in-aid, state-shared taxes, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes,and reimbursements for services performed for state government.

Cities Without Property Taxes Comparedto Cities With Property TaxesHow are cities without property taxes able to function withoutthis important revenue source? To answer this question, citieswith and without property taxes are compared with one another.Since cities without property taxes tend to be small, they arecompared to cities (with property taxes) that have similarpopulations. TACIR used cities with populations of 5,000 orless for this comparison.14 To reduce the impact of stateeducational revenue grants, cities with city school systems wereomitted from the analysis as were cities for which data wasobviously erroneous.15 TACIR analyzed the fiscal performanceof cities, as well as the number of services provided.

11 Source: Tennessee Department of Revenue.12 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics13 See Appendix 1A, Appendix 1B, and Appendix 1C for changes in city distributionsfrom 1997 to 2003.14 There are two cities without property taxes included in this study that had populationsover 5,000 (Mt. Juliet: 1996 population is 7,430 and Farragut: 1996 population is 16,223).15 Cities that have city school systems receive intergovernmental revenue from the stateand their respective county governments for education (city share of county educationalproperty taxes and city share of 50% of county-wide local option sales taxes for education).Their exclusion reduces distortions that would otherwise occur as a result of these largeearmarked intergovernmental revenue flows to a relatively small group of cities.

In 2003, citieswithout propertytaxes received$14,414,336 instate-sharedtaxes. These citiesreceived anaverage of$171,599 each.


7

Item

Median Mean Median Mean

Population 1996 640 1,228 1,269 1,622

Services Provided, Criteria 1 3.0 3.1 5.0 4.9

Servies Provided, Criteria 2 2.0 2.1 4.0 3.9

Federal Intergovernmental Revenue

Per Capita0.0 3.0 0.0 10.0

State Intergovernmental Revenue Per

Capita98.0 170.0 114.0 156.0

Local Intergovernmental Revenue Per

Capita13.0 49.0 26.0 71.0

Tax Revenue Per Capita 29.0 66.0 151.0 213.0

Other/Miscelleanous Revenue Per

Capita23.0 51.0 47.0 78.0

Total Revenue Per Capita 238.0 338.0 416.0 528.0

Per Capita Expenditures 164.0 229.0 386.0 442.0

Own-Source Revenue as Percent

of Total Revenue

State Intergovernmental Revenue

as Percent of Total Revenue

Source: US Census Bureau, Census of Governments, 1997

Cities with city school systems also excluded.

All revenue and expenditure information excludes utilities.

Bean Station, Coopertown, Pleasant View, Ramer, Trezevant, and Unicoi not included

in calculations.

55% 54% 30% 34%

Table 1. Comparison of Cities Without Property Taxes

Federal Intergovernmental Revenue: Amounts received directly from the Federal

Government.

State Intergovernmental Revenue: Amounts received directly from state government

including aid passed through the state government and state aid channelled through

intermediate local Federal governments (e.g., counties).

Cities Without

Property Taxes

(N=79)

Cities With Property

Taxes and

Populations Under

5,000 (N=176)

27% 30% 51% 52%

Local Intergovermental Revenue: Amounts received from local governments for use

in performing specific functions, for general financial assistance, or as share of tax

proceeds.

Tax Revenue from COG 1997. Defined as: Compulsory contributions exacted by a

government for public purposes, other than from special assessments for capital

improvements and from employee and employer contributions or "taxes" for retirement

and social insurance systems. Comprises amounts received (including interest and

penalites) from taxes (1) imposed by a government and collected by that government

or (2) collected on its behalf by another government serving as its agent.

Other Revenue: Miscellaneous revenue which does not fall under intergovernmental

revenue or tax excluding utilities, current charges, and insurance trust revenue.

Examples of revenue in this category revenue, include revenue from property sales,

interest earnings, and special assessments.

to Cities With Property Taxes

8


Local Government Finances

TACIR measured cities’ own-source revenue as a percent oftotal general revenue. This is important in a study of equityand fairness because some cities may raise significantly lessown-source revenue than other cities but receive the stateshared taxes based upon the same distribution formulas. Own-source revenue in this study includes locally imposed taxes(such as business taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, motorvehicle license taxes, etc.), and other/miscellaneous revenue(such as fines and forfeits, special assessments, rents, etc.).16

Total operating revenue is the sum of these revenues plusintergovernmental revenue (from federal, state, and localsources). In the category of other/miscellaneous revenue,current charges and non-general revenue were excluded tosimplify comparisons of cities with and without property taxes.17

TACIR’s analysis found thatcities with property taxesraise significantly moreown-source revenue thancities without propertytaxes.18 The ratio of own-source revenue to totalrevenue for cities withoutproperty taxes averaged30%, while the average forcities with property taxeswas 52%.19 Consistent withthis finding is that cities withproperty taxes rely less on

16 Wheel taxes included in the category of “motor vehicle taxes.”17 Current charges were excluded for two reasons: 1) the single largest category of currentcharges was for sewerage, and many cities did not report separate data for this category,instead reporting combined water and sewerage charges under water supply utility revenue,which is not general revenue; and 2) the second largest category of current chargesreported was for hospitals. Only a handful of cities in Tennessee run their own hospitals,and those that do generate substantial amounts of hospital-related revenues. Includinghospital charges would therefore tend to distort the fiscal pictures of most cities.18 See Table 1.19 See Graph 1.

Average per capitaexpenditures ofcities that levyproperty taxes aresignificantly morethan average percapita expendituresof cities that do notlevy property taxes.


Graph 1

Average Own-Source Revenue and

State Intergovernmental Revenue as Percent of Total Revenue

54%

30%

34%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

State Intergovernmental

Revenue to Total Revenue

Own-Source Revenue to

Total Revenue

Pe

rce

nt

of

To

tal

Cities Without Property Taxes

Cities With Property Taxes


9

state intergovernmental aid to function than do cities withoutproperty taxes. State intergovernmental aid accounted for amean of 34% of total revenue for cities with property taxes,versus a mean of 54% for those without property taxes.

Property taxes represent the single largest source of city taxrevenue in Tennessee. Cities that lack this essential revenuesource are much more limited in the amount of tax revenuethey are able to generate, making them more dependent onother revenue sources. Tax revenue includes taxes collecteddirectly by a city as well as taxes collected on a city’s behalf byanother government, such as county government.

Cities with property taxes raise more tax revenue than citieswithout property taxes, based on per capita tax revenue(mean per capita $213 versus $66). Besides property taxes,another large source of revenue for some cities is business taxrevenue. However, this is not the case for cities without propertytaxes.20

The business tax is a gross receipt tax levied by cities andcounties on businesses Tennessee Department of Revenue dataindicates that only four of the 84 cities without property taxeslevy business taxes (Berry Hill, Caryville, Farragut, and MountJuliet).

It is important to note that per capita state intergovernmentalaid distributed to cities, regardless of whether they levy aproperty tax or not, does not differ much. This follows fromthe fact that the principal basis for state tax distributions tocities is population. In FY 1997, cities that do levy propertytaxes reported average per capita state intergovernmental aidof $156 while cities that do not levy property taxes reportedaverage per capita state intergovernmental aid of $170.

20 The business tax is a gross receipt tax levied by cities and counties on businessesengaging in activities with “the object of gain, benefit, or advantage, either directly orindirectly.” (Business Tax Guide, Department of Revenue, August 2003) The business taxis applicable to businesses, vocations, and occupations listed in Tenn. Code Ann. Sections67-4-708(1)-(4).

Cities withoutproperty taxesgenerated anaverage of $66 percapita in taxrevenuecompared to anaverage of $213per capitagenerated by citieswith propertytaxes.

10


Services Provided

An analysis of services provided by cities is essential in a studyof equity and fairness because helping cities provide servicesis generally considered one of the principal reasons for state-tax sharing. The services required in the statutory plan ofservices required for new incorporations are fire protection,police protection, parks and recreational facilities, sanitarysewage system, solid waste disposal, road and streetconstruction and repair, and water service.21

For the purpose of this report, sewerage and water service areevaluated as one service since many cities have joint water/sewer departments. Note that evaluation of city spending onwater and sewerage to determine whether or not a city providesthese services was completed in an analysis separate from thatwhich calculates fiscal effort. Fiscal effort calculations excludespending on and revenue earmarked for utilities. Cities arenot required to directly provide these services and may makearrangements with a private contractor to deliver services. Inthat case, evaluating expenditures still reveals whether or nota city is providing service because they would have to pay theprivate contractor. Cities also have the option of contractingwith county governments for certain services.

Two criteria are used to measure city service levels in thisanalysis.22 Criteria 1 is met if a city reported any level ofspending on a service. Criteria 2 is met if a city reportedspending an amount equal to or greater than 50% of themedian per capita amount spent by cities that reportedspending any positive amount on the service.

TACIR’s analysis found that cities that do not levy propertytaxes provide fewer services. Based on Criteria 1, citieswithout property taxes offered an average of 3.1 services.23

Based on the same criteria, cities with property taxes offeredan average of 4.9 services to citizens. Based on Criteria 2,

21TCA 6-1-201; TCA 6-18-103; TCA 6-30-104; TCA 6-58-101 et seq.22 See Appendix 6 for a full description of criteria.23 See Graph 2.

Cities that levyproperty taxesprovide anaverage of 4.9services comparedto 3.1 services forcities that do notlevy the propertytax.


11

cities without propertytaxes offered an averageof 2.1 services, versus anaverage of 3.9 servicesoffered by cities withproperty taxes based onthe same criteria. Theanalysis also found thatcities that levy propertytaxes spend considerablymore per capita overallthan cities that do notlevy property taxes(mean per capitaexpenditures of $442versus $229). The fact that cities without property taxes spendso much less per capita than cities with property taxes generallyreflects lower service levels.

Population

Though the effect is less significant than the levying of propertytaxes, city size also has an affect on cities’ ability to generateown-source revenue, their dependence on state-shared taxes,and the number of services they provide. To explore how citysize is related to these variables, cities with and without propertytaxes were grouped into quartiles (4 groups of equal number)based on population.24

The trends seem to be similar among both cities with andwithout property taxes. That is, as cities get larger, they areless dependent on state aid and provide more services.However, though the trends follow similar patterns, the dollaramounts and number of services provided among cities withand without property taxes vary greatly. In many cases thesmallest cities with property taxes fare better than the largestcities without property taxes.

24 Note that all findings below are based on 1996 population in order to be compatible withCOG 1997 data.


Graph 2

Average Number of Services Provided

3.1

2.1

4.9

3.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Services, Criteria 1

(Any Spending on

Service)

Services, Criteria 2

(Per Capita

Spending => 50%

State Median Per

Capita Spending)

Serv

ices P

rovid

ed



12


Own-Source Revenue

City size does not appear to be strongly related to the amountof own-source revenue cities generate.25 However, cities of allsizes with property taxes raised a considerably larger percentof own-source revenue than cities without property taxes.


The quartile reporting the lowest percentage of own-sourcerevenue was Quartile 1 (population 61-357), which reportedan average 25% of own-source revenue in relation to totalrevenue. The other three quartiles reported similarpercentages of own-source revenue, with each averagingbetween 30% and 34%.


There was little variance by quartiles with respect to own-source revenue as a percentage of total revenue.26 Twoquartiles reported a mean 51% of own-source to totalrevenue, and the other two quartiles reported means of 52%and 54% of own-source to total revenue.

25 See Table 2 and Graph 3.26 See Table 3.


Graph 3

Average Own-Source Revenue and State Intergovernmental Revenue as

Percent of Total Revenue for Cities Without Property Taxes, by City Size

25%32% 34% 30%

67% 52% 50%48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Population

61-357

Population

367-625

Population

640-1,277

Population

1,285-16,223

Pe

rce

nt

of

To

tal

Rev

en

ue

State-Shared Tax Revenue to

Total Revenue

Own-Source Revenue to Total

Revenue

Cities withproperty taxesraised aconsiderably largerpercent of own-source revenuethan cities withoutproperty taxes.


13

Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4

Pop 61-357 Pop 367-625 Pop 640-1,277 Pop 1,285-16,223

Total Intergovernmental Revenue as

Percent of Total Revenue (Mean)1

State Intergovernmental Revenue as

Percent of Total Revenue (Mean) 2

Own-Source Revenue

as Percent of Total Revenue (Mean)3

Median Per Capita Tax Revenue5

$67 $45 $83 $70

Median Per Capita Expenditures6

$154 $202 $255 $301

2 State Intergovernmental Revenue / Total Revenue

3 Own-Source Revenue (Tax Revenue+Other Revenue) / Total Revenue

5 Tax Revenue / Population 1996

6 Expenditures / Population 1996


N=79

No data for Bean Station, Coopertown, Pleasant View, Ramer, and Unicoi.

Table 2. Cities Without Property Taxes Selected Results by Quartiles (City Size)

1 Total Intergovermental Revenue (Federal Intergovermental Revenue+State Intergovernmental Revenue+Local

Intergovermental Revenue) / Total Revenue (Total Intergovernmental Revenue+Tax Revenue+Other Revenue)

4 Number of services out of 6 (fire, parks & recreation, police, sewerage/water,solid waste management, and streets and

highways) on which the city spent at least 50% of the state median per capita.

Mean Number of Services

(Based on Criteria 2)4

1.6 1.9 2.2 2.8

25% 32% 34% 30%

67% 52% 50% 48%

75% 68% 67% 70%

Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4

Pop 95-601 Pop 604-1,261 Pop 1,277-2,239 2,286-4,990

Total Intergovernmental Revenue as

Percent of Total Revenue (Mean)1

State Intergovernmental Revenue

Percent of Total Revenue (Mean) 2

Own-Source Revenue

as Percent of Total Revenue (Mean)3

Median Per Capita Tax Revenue5 $185 $186 $161 $319

Median Per Capita Expenditures6 $365 $400 $392 $611

2 State Intergovernmental Revenue / Total Revenue

3 Own-Source Revenue (Tax Revenue+Other Revenue) / Total Revenue

5 Tax Revenue / Population 1996

6 Expenditures / Population 1996


N=176

Cities with city school systems excluded, as well as cities with populations of 5,000 and over.

Table 3. Cities With Property Taxes Selected Results by Quartile (City Size)

1 Total Intergovermental Revenue (Federal Intergovermental Revenue+State Intergovernmental Revenue+Local

Intergovermental Revenue) / Total Revenue (Total Intergovernmental Revenue+Tax Revenue+Other Revenue)

4 Number of services out of 6 (fire, parks & recreation, police, sewerage/water,solid waste management, and streets and

highways) on which the city spent at least 50% of the state median per capita.

4.9

Mean Number of Services

(Based on Criteria 2)4

3.1 3.5 4.0

51% 52% 51% 54%

40% 35% 33% 28%

49% 48% 49% 46%

14


Importance of State Aid

For cities with and without property taxes, the importance ofstate aid declines as city size increases. However, all groups ofcities with property taxes were less dependent on state aidthan all groups of cities without property taxes.


Based on the percentage of total revenue comprised of stateintergovernmental revenue, larger cities are less dependenton this revenue source. The quartile least dependent on stateintergovernmental aid was Quartile 4 (population 1,285-16,223). These cities had a mean reported dependence onstate intergovernmental aid of 48%.


The level of dependence on state intergovernmental aidvaried more than ability to raise own-source revenue.Quartile 4 (population 2,286-4,990) reported the leastdependence on state intergovernmental aid (28% of totalrevenue from state intergovernmental aid). These valuesincrease as the cities within quartiles become larger, withQuartile 1 (population 95-601) reporting the mostdependence on state intergovernmental aid (40% of totalrevenue from state intergovernmental aid).

Services

City size does appear to be closely related to the number ofservices offered. Even so, the variance of services providedamong cities with and without property taxes is very clear.Even the smallest cities with property taxes provided an averageof more services than the largest cities without property taxes.


Based on expenditure data from COG 1997, larger citiesprovide more services. Quartile 4 (population 1,285-16,223),which is the quartile containing the largest cities, reportedproviding the highest average number of services (2.8) basedon Criteria 2. The average number of services provided

The importance ofstate aid declinesas city sizeincreases.

Even the smallestcities with propertytaxes provided anaverage of moreservices than thelargest citieswithout propertytaxes.


15

decreases among the other three quartiles with Quartile 1(population 61-357) providing an average of only 1.6services.


The number of services offered does increase as cities becomelarger. Cities in the first quartile (population 95-601) offereda mean of 3.1 services, those in the second (population 604-1,218) and third (population 1,231-2,295) offered means of3.5 and 4.0 services, respectively. Cities in the fourth quartile(population 2,236-4,990) offered a mean of 4.9 services.

ConclusionsThough cities with property taxes generate more own-sourcerevenue than cities without property taxes, all cities receive state-shared taxes based on the same distribution formulas (excludingPremier Tourist Type Resort Cities). At present there is no fiscaleffort requirement for receiving state-shared tax distributions. Stateintergovernmental aid is used to supplement other forms ofrevenue, but from this study it is evident that many cities withoutproperty taxes are heavily relying on state-shared taxes to fundtheir activities. In the absence of state-shared tax dollars, it isdoubtful that many could continue to function without levyingproperty taxes. There is also no service requirement for existingcities to receive state-shared taxes. Cities without property taxesmost likely would be able to provide more services to citizens ifproperty tax revenues were a part of their budgets. As the quartileanalysis shows, even the largest cities studied without propertytaxes provide an average of only 2.8 services. The limited abilityto generate own-source revenue, the level of dependence on stateintergovernmental aid, and the low number of services providedby these cities can be linked to their lack of property taxes. Thefact that these cities receive state-shared taxes based on the sameformulas as other cities may represent an inequity in state taxsharing.

16


BibliographyState Board of Equalization. 2003. 2002 Tax Aggregate Report of Tennessee. Nashville.

Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 2004. Hall Income TaxDistributions and Local Government Finances. Nashville.

Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 2004. State Tax Sharing,Fairness, and Local Government Finance in Tennessee. Nashville.

Tennessee Department of Revenue. 2003. Business Tax Guide. Nashville.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 1997 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 5,Compendium of Government Finances. U.S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonD.C., December, 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau, Internet site http//www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Internet site http//www.bls.gov.


17

Appendices

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................ 18

1A: 2003 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities WithoutProperty Taxes ($) ............................................................................ 18

1B: 1997 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities WithProperty Taxes ($) ............................................................................ 22

1C: Comparison of City Distributions of State-Shared Taxesin 1997 and 2003 (Cities Without Property Taxes) ........................... 25

Appendix 2 ................................................................................................ 26Data Source Information

Appendix 3 ................................................................................................ 27Fiscal and Service Data for Cities Without Property Taxes

Appendix 4 ................................................................................................ 31Populations of Cities Without Property Taxes, 1996 and 2003

Appendix 5 ................................................................................................ 32Counties Containing Cities Without Property Taxes (Map)

Appendix 6 ................................................................................................ 33Description of Service Criteria

18 Cities Without Property Taxes: A Source of Inequity?

ALLARDT 3,999 17,930 334 4,181 38,547 0 1,467 0 66,456

ALTAMONT 455 31,726 590 7,398 68,207 0 2,595 0 110,971

ATWOOD 2,921 27,928 520 6,513 60,041 0 2,284 0 100,207

AUBURNTOWN 1,439 7,038 131 1,641 15,130 0 576 0 25,955

BAILEYTON 25 14,076 262 3,282 30,261 0 1,151 0 49,057

BEAN STATION 6,559 72,323 1,351 16,926 155,511 0 5,917 0 258,586

BEERSHEBA SPRINGS 0 15,444 287 3,601 33,203 0 1,263 0 53,799

BERRY HILL 3,783 18,823 350 4,389 40,468 29,455 1,540 0 98,808

BLAINE 2,758 44,265 824 10,322 95,166 0 3,621 0 156,956

BRADEN 521 7,568 141 1,765 16,271 0 619 0 26,886

BURLISON 364 12,651 235 2,950 27,199 0 1,035 0 44,435

CARYVILLE 12,616 63,061 1,173 14,705 135,574 0 5,158 0 232,287

CENTERTOWN 21 7,177 134 1,674 15,431 0 587 0 25,023

CLARKSBURG 99 7,959 148 1,856 17,112 0 651 0 27,825

COALMONT 686 26,475 493 6,174 56,919 0 2,166 0 92,913

COOPERTOWN 9,318 96,838 1,824 22,859 208,300 0 7,925 0 347,064

CRAB ORCHARD 0 23,403 435 5,458 50,315 0 1,914 0 81,525

CROSS PLAINS 3,095 38,568 718 8,994 82,917 0 3,155 0 137,447

CRUMP 716 42,478 790 9,906 91,323 0 3,475 0 148,688

DOWELLTOWN 684 8,434 157 1,967 18,133 0 690 0 30,064

DOYLE 116 14,662 273 3,419 31,522 0 1,199 0 51,192

EASTVIEW 0 17,259 321 4,025 37,106 0 1,412 0 60,123

ENVILLE 0 6,423 120 1,498 13,810 0 525 0 22,376

ETHRIDGE 3,114 14,969 279 3,491 32,182 0 1,224 0 55,260

FARRAGUT 328,415 494,879 9,208 115,403 1,063,936 154,591 40,479 0 2,206,910

FINGER 331 9,775 182 2,279 21,015 0 800 0 34,381

FOREST HILLS 572,186 131,539 2,448 30,674 282,796 9,881 10,759 0 1,040,283

TOTAL MUNICIPALITY

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM

EXCISE

TAXES

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

T.V.A.

REPLACEMENT

Appendix 1A2003 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities Without Property Taxes ($)


19

FRIENDSVILLE 3,574 24,856 463 5,796 53,437 0 2,033 0 90,159

GADSDEN 606 15,444 287 3,601 33,203 0 1,263 0 54,405

GARLAND 556 8,630 161 2,012 18,553 0 706 0 30,618

GILT EDGE 133 13,657 254 3,185 29,360 0 1,117 0 47,706

GREENBACK 22,593 26,643 496 6,213 57,280 0 2,179 0 115,403

GRUETLI-LAAGER 0 52,141 970 12,159 112,097 0 4,265 0 181,633

GUYS 4 13,489 251 3,146 29,000 0 1,103 0 46,993

HARROGATE 11,193 123,580 2,300 28,818 265,684 0 10,108 0 441,682

JACKSBORO (658) 52,700 981 12,289 113,298 0 4,311 0 182,920

LAKELAND 23,780 191,640 3,566 44,689 412,005 0 15,675 0 691,355

LAKEWOOD 874 65,379 1,217 15,246 140,557 0 5,348 0 228,620

LOUISVILLE 19,935 57,298 1,066 13,364 123,185 0 4,687 0 219,535

LUTTRELL 4,198 25,554 475 5,959 54,938 0 2,090 0 93,215

MAYNARDVILLE 8,373 49,767 926 11,605 106,994 0 4,071 0 181,736

MEDON 1,267 7,321 140 1,752 15,756 0 600 0 26,835

MICHIE 3,172 18,069 336 4,214 38,847 0 1,478 0 66,116

MILLEDGEVILLE 135 8,015 149 1,869 17,232 0 656 0 28,056

MINOR HILL 580 12,204 227 2,846 26,238 0 998 0 43,093

MONTEAGLE 13,728 34,574 643 8,063 74,331 20,434 2,828 0 154,602

MOSHEIM 4,438 48,973 911 11,423 105,287 0 4,006 0 175,039

MOUNT JULIET 36,176 386,891 7,274 91,156 832,141 4,581 31,661 0 1,389,881

NEW MARKET 10,570 34,463 641 8,037 74,091 0 2,819 0 130,621

NEW TAZEWELL 16,862 80,180 1,492 18,698 172,379 0 6,559 0 296,170

OAK HILL 365,990 125,479 2,335 29,261 269,767 0 10,264 0 803,095

ORLINDA 0 16,589 309 3,868 35,665 0 1,357 0 57,788

ORME 0 3,463 64 808 7,445 0 283 0 12,063

EXCISE

TAXES TOTAL

T.V.A.

REPLACEMENT

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM MUNICIPALITY

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

Appendix 1A (continued)2003 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities Without Property Taxes ($)


PALMER 213 20,276 377 4,728 43,590 0 1,659 0 70,842

PARKERS CROSSROADS 41 7,931 148 1,850 17,052 0 649 0 27,670

PARROTTSVILLE 7,212 5,781 108 1,348 12,429 0 473 0 27,350

PEGRAM 7,030 59,933 1,115 13,976 128,849 0 4,902 0 215,806

PHILADELPHIA 2,039 14,885 277 3,471 32,002 0 1,218 0 53,892

PLAINVIEW 35 52,113 970 12,152 112,037 0 4,263 0 181,571

PLEASANT HILL 12,358 15,193 283 3,543 32,663 0 1,243 0 65,282

PLEASANT VIEW 6,210 81,940 1,525 19,108 176,162 0 6,702 0 291,647

POWELLS CROSSROADS 0 35,915 668 8,375 77,213 0 2,938 0 125,110

RAMER 1,645 9,886 184 2,305 21,255 0 809 0 36,084

ROCKFORD 33,090 23,794 443 5,549 51,155 0 1,946 0 115,978

RUTLEDGE 16,160 33,150 617 7,730 71,269 0 2,712 0 131,639

SALTILLO 187 11,395 212 2,657 24,497 0 932 0 39,880

SAMBURG 19 7,261 135 1,693 15,611 0 594 0 25,313

SAULSBURY 734 2,765 51 645 5,944 0 226 0 10,365

SILERTON 0 1,676 31 391 3,603 0 137 0 5,837

SLAYDEN 564 6,236 118 1,478 13,417 0 510 0 22,323

SNEEDVILLE 1,546 35,105 653 8,186 75,472 0 2,872 0 123,834

SPENCER 1,202 47,840 890 11,156 102,851 0 3,913 0 167,853

STANTONVILLE 1,569 8,713 162 2,032 18,733 0 713 0 31,922

SUNBRIGHT 2,670 16,114 300 3,758 34,644 466 1,318 0 59,270

TAZEWELL 56,778 60,463 1,125 14,100 129,990 0 4,946 0 267,402

TOWNSEND 56,891 6,814 127 1,589 14,650 0 557 0 80,628

TUSCULUM STATION 5,474 56,120 1,045 13,090 120,653 0 4,591 0 200,972

UNICOI 7,913 98,278 1,829 22,918 211,286 0 8,039 0 350,262

VIOLA 1,254 3,603 67 840 7,745 0 295 0 13,804

EXCISE

TAXES TOTAL MUNICIPALITY

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

T.V.A.

REPLACEMENT

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM



21

WARTBURG 15,100 24,856 463 5,796 53,437 0 2,033 0 101,685

WILLISTON 1,280 9,523 177 2,221 20,474 0 779 0 34,455

WINFIELD 5,162 25,442 473 5,933 54,698 0 2,081 0 93,790

WOODLAND MILLS 1,011 10,627 200 2,507 22,858 0 870 0 38,072

YORKVILLE 479 8,183 152 1,908 17,592 0 669 0 28,984

TOTAL 1,748,167 3,572,483 66,585 834,462 7,680,994 219,407 292,239 0 14,414,336

EXCISE

TAXES TOTAL MUNICIPALITY

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

T.V.A.

REPLACEMENT

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM

Source: Tennessee Department of Revenue



Appendix 1B1997 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities Without Property Taxes ($)

ALLARDT 2,564 16,746 307 3,408 33,330 0 1,540 0 57,895

ALTAMONT 1,230 20,843 382 4,242 41,484 0 1,917 0 70,098

ATWOOD 90 29,312 537 5,965 58,340 0 2,696 0 96,941

AUBURNTOWN 451 6,599 121 1,343 13,135 0 607 0 22,256

BAILEYTON 2,037 9,047 166 1,841 18,006 0 832 0 31,928

BEERSHEBA SPRINGS 0 16,389 300 3,335 32,618 0 1,507 0 54,149

BERRY HILL 7,560 22,053 404 4,488 43,892 17,080 2,028 0 97,506

BLAINE 2,469 36,462 668 7,420 72,570 0 3,353 0 122,942

BRADEN 178 9,734 178 1,981 19,374 0 895 0 32,340

BURLISON 504 10,834 199 2,205 21,563 0 996 0 36,301

CARYVILLE 8,737 48,973 897 9,966 97,471 0 4,504 0 170,548

CENTERTOWN 0 8,969 167 1,858 18,170 0 840 0 30,003

CLARKSBURG 24 8,827 162 1,796 17,568 0 812 0 29,188

COALMONT 1,544 20,083 410 4,549 44,494 0 2,056 0 73,136

CRAB ORCHARD 1,185 24,088 441 4,902 47,942 0 2,215 0 80,773

CROSS PLAINS 1,214 34,657 707 7,851 76,784 0 3,548 0 124,760

CRUMP 109 55,765 1,022 11,348 110,989 0 5,128 0 184,362

DOWELLTOWN 496 7,608 155 1,723 16,856 0 779 0 27,618

DOYLE 218 9,487 174 1,931 18,881 0 872 0 31,562

EASTVIEW 31 15,481 284 3,150 30,812 0 1,424 0 51,182

ENVILLE 59 5,314 123 1,365 13,354 0 617 0 20,833

ETHRIDGE 1,953 15,263 285 3,162 30,922 0 1,429 0 53,012

FARRAGUT 293,211 406,825 7,456 82,790 809,706 97,023 37,413 0 1,734,424

FINGER 1,035 6,077 141 1,561 15,269 0 705 0 24,789

FOREST HILLS 654,475 116,342 2,132 23,676 231,556 7,935 10,699 0 1,046,815

FRIENDSVILLE 11,196 21,778 399 4,432 43,345 0 2,003 0 83,153

GADSDEN 370 13,438 311 3,453 33,767 0 1,560 0 52,899

GARLAND 980 8,634 158 1,757 17,185 0 794 0 29,508

TOTAL

EXCISE

TAXES

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

T.V.A

REPLACEMENTMUNICIPALITY

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM


23

GILT EDGE 224 12,291 225 2,501 24,464 0 1,130 0 40,836

GREENBACK 5,384 17,846 327 7,398 35,519 0 1,641 0 68,116

GRUETLI-LAAGER 21 49,770 912 10,128 99,058 0 4,577 0 164,467

GUYS 201 12,277 250 2,781 27,200 0 1,257 0 43,966

HARROGATE 2,680 117,854 2,160 23,984 234,566 0 10,838 0 392,082

JACKSBORO 5,977 43,116 790 8,774 85,814 0 3,965 0 148,437

LAKELAND 10,615 57,277 1,050 11,656 113,999 0 5,267 0 199,865

LAKEWOOD 2,008 55,242 1,012 11,242 109,949 0 5,080 0 184,534

LOUISVILLE 26,996 37,549 700 7,778 76,072 0 3,515 0 152,611

LUTTRELL 964 27,497 504 5,596 54,728 0 2,529 0 91,818

MAYNARDVILLE 2,830 32,285 659 7,314 71,530 0 3,305 0 117,922

MEDON 6,369 5,075 117 1,304 12,752 0 589 0 26,206

MICHIE 1,386 18,726 343 3,811 37,270 0 1,722 0 63,258

MILLEDGEVILLE 0 7,834 146 1,623 15,871 0 733 0 26,207

MINOR HILL 297 10,229 187 2,082 20,359 0 941 0 34,095

MONTEAGLE 16,841 30,742 573 6,368 62,281 1,943 2,878 0 121,626

MOSHEIM 2,416 43,144 791 8,780 85,869 0 3,968 0 144,967

MOUNT JULIET 67,800 252,400 4,626 51,364 502,352 0 23,212 0 901,753

NEW MARKET 3,744 28,009 648 7,196 70,381 0 3,252 0 113,230

NEW TAZEWEL L 13,232 51,255 939 10,431 102,014 0 4,714 0 182,584

OAK HILL 212,684 118,267 2,167 24,067 235,387 0 10,876 0 603,449

ORLINDA 3,642 14,326 263 2,915 28,514 0 1,317 0 50,977

ORME 222 3,705 76 839 8,209 0 379 0 13,431

PALMER 94 24,115 442 4,908 47,997 0 2,218 0 79,773

PARKERS CROSSROADS 446 5,445 100 1,108 10,836 0 501 0 18,435

PARROTTSVILLE 1,474 3,483 71 789 7,717 0 357 0 13,890

PEGRAM 8,914 44,491 815 9,054 88,551 0 4,092 0 155,917

TOTALMUNICIPALITY

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

T.V.A

REPLACEMENT

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM

EXCISE

TAXES

Appendix 1B (continued)1997 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities Without Property Taxes ($)


PHILADELPHIA 1,382 11,437 233 5,278 25,339 0 1,171 0 44,840

PLAINVIEW 190 34,757 637 7,073 69,177 0 3,196 0 115,030

PLEASANT HILL 11,951 13,584 249 2,764 27,036 0 1,249 0 56,833

POWELLS CROSSROADS 783 30,192 553 6,144 60,092 0 2,777 0 100,541

RAMER 1,813 8,161 170 1,886 18,443 0 852 0 31,326

ROCKFORD 3,589 19,578 359 3,984 38,967 0 1,800 0 68,277

RUTLEDGE 12,227 32,997 605 6,715 65,674 0 3,035 0 121,252

SALTILLO 137 11,384 209 2,317 22,658 0 1,047 0 37,751

SAMBURG 436 10,284 188 2,093 20,468 0 946 0 34,415

SAULSBURY 1,683 2,915 59 660 6,458 0 298 0 12,074

SILERTON 16 2,805 51 571 5,582 0 258 0 9,283

SLAYDEN 798 2,418 56 621 6,075 0 281 0 10,248

SNEEDVILLE 1,344 39,981 733 8,136 79,575 0 3,677 0 133,446

SPENCER 2,345 30,935 567 6,295 61,569 0 2,845 0 104,556

STANTONVILLE 0 6,185 143 1,589 15,543 0 718 0 24,179

SUNBRIGHT 591 14,105 288 3,195 31,250 1,374 1,444 0 52,247

TAZEWELL 7,278 59,120 1,083 12,031 117,666 0 5,437 0 202,614

TOWNSEND 7,519 9,047 166 1,841 18,006 0 832 0 37,410

TUSCULUM STATION 4,534 59,587 1,092 12,126 118,596 0 5,480 0 201,415

UNICOI 0 80,870 1,482 16,457 160,956 0 7,437 0 267,203

VIOLA 935 3,382 62 688 6,732 0 311 0 12,110

WARTBURG 3,204 25,628 470 5,215 51,007 0 2,357 0 87,880

WILLISTON 691 9,300 215 2,389 23,369 0 1,080 0 37,045

WINFIELD 511 15,509 284 3,156 30,867 0 1,426 0 51,753

WOODLAND MILLS 601 10,944 201 2,227 21,782 0 1,006 0 36,761

YORKVILLE 611 8,571 175 1,942 18,991 0 877 0 31,167

TOTAL 1,456,551 2,683,552 49,911 560,682 5,420,518 125,354 250,460 0 10,547,028

TOTALMUNICIPALITY

INCOME

TAX

GASOLINE &

MOTOR FUEL BEER

T.V.A

REPLACEMENT

SALES &

USE

MIXED

DRINK

SPECIAL

PETROLEUM

EXCISE

TAXES

Source: Tennessee Department of RevenueBean Station, Coopertown, and Pleasant View not included due to incorporation in 1996.

Appendix 1B (continued)1997 State-Shared Tax Distributions to Cities Without Property Taxes ($)


25

Appendix 1CComparison of City Distributions of State-Shared Taxes in 1997 and 2003


ALLARDT 57,895 66,456 8,561 MILLEDGEVILLE 26,207 28,056 1,849

ALTAMONT 70,098 110,971 40,873 MINOR HILL 34,095 43,093 8,998

ATWOOD 96,941 100,207 3,266 MONTEAGLE 121,626 154,602 32,976

AUBURNTOWN 22,256 25,955 3,699 MOSHEIM 144,967 175,039 30,072

BAILEYTON 31,928 49,057 17,129 MOUNT JULIET 901,753 1,389,881 488,128

BEAN STATION N/A 258,586 N/A NEW MARKET 113,230 130,621 17,391

BEERSHEBA SPRINGS 54,149 53,799 (350) NEW TAZEWEL L 182,584 296,170 113,586

BERRY HILL 97,506 98,808 1,302 OAK HILL 603,449 803,095 199,646

BLAINE 122,942 156,956 34,014 ORLINDA 50,977 57,788 6,811

BRADEN 32,340 26,886 (5,454) ORME 13,431 12,063 (1,368)

BURLISON 36,301 44,435 8,134 PALMER 79,773 70,842 (8,931)

CARYVILLE 170,548 232,287 61,739 PARKERS CROSSROADS 18,435 27,670 9,235

CENTERTOWN 30,003 25,023 (4,980) PARROTTSVILLE 13,890 27,350 13,460

CLARKSBURG 29,188 27,825 (1,363) PEGRAM 155,917 215,806 59,889

COALMONT 73,136 92,913 19,777 PHILADELPHIA 44,840 53,892 9,052

COOPERTOWN N/A 347,064 N/A PLAINVIEW 115,030 181,571 66,541

CRAB ORCHARD 80,773 81,525 752 PLEASANT HILL 56,833 65,282 8,449

CROSS PLAINS 124,760 137,447 12,687 PLEASANT VIEW N/A 291,674 N/A

CRUMP 184,362 148,688 (35,674) POWELLS CROSSROADS 100,541 125,110 24,569

DOWELLTOWN 27,618 30,064 2,446 RAMER 31,326 36,084 4,758

DOYLE 31,562 51,192 19,630 ROCKFORD 68,277 115,978 47,701

EASTVIEW 51,182 60,123 8,941 RUTLEDGE 121,252 131,639 10,387

ENVILLE 20,833 22,376 1,543 SALTILLO 37,751 39,880 2,129

ETHRIDGE 53,012 55,260 2,248 SAMBURG 34,415 25,313 (9,102)

FARRAGUT 1,734,424 2,206,910 472,486 SAULSBURY 12,074 10,365 (1,709)

FINGER 24,789 34,381 9,592 SILERTON 9,283 5,837 (3,446)

FOREST HILLS 1,046,815 1,040,283 (6,532) SLAYDEN 10,248 22,323 12,075

FRIENDSVILLE 83,153 90,159 7,006 SNEEDVILLE 133,446 123,834 (9,612)

GADSDEN 52,899 54,405 1,506 SPENCER 104,556 167,853 63,297

GARLAND 29,508 30,618 1,110 STANTONVILLE 24,179 31,922 7,743

GILT EDGE 40,836 47,706 6,870 SUNBRIGHT 52,247 59,270 7,023

GREENBACK 68,116 115,403 47,287 TAZEWELL 202,614 267,042 64,428

GRUETLI-LAAGER 164,467 181,633 17,166 TOWNSEND 37,410 80,628 43,218

GUYS 43,966 46,993 3,027 TUSCULUM STATION 201,415 200,972 (443)

HARROGATE 392,082 441,682 49,600 UNICOI 267,203 350,262 83,059

JACKSBORO 148,437 182,920 34,483 VIOLA 12,110 13,804 1,694

LAKELAND 199,865 691,355 491,490 WARTBURG 87,880 101,685 13,805

LAKEWOOD 184,534 228,620 44,086 WILLISTON 37,045 34,455 (2,590)

LOUISVILLE 152,611 219,535 66,924 WINFIELD 51,753 93,790 42,037

LUTTRELL 91,818 93,215 1,397 WOODLAND MILLS 36,761 38,072 1,311

MAYNARDVILLE 117,922 181,736 63,814 YORKVILLE 31,167 28,984 (2,183)

MEDON 26,206 26,835 629 TOTAL 6,165,037 8,284,408 2,119,371

MICHIE 63,258 66,116 2,858

Source: Tennessee Department of Revenue

MUNICIPALITY 1997 ($) 2003 ($) ChangeMUNICIPALITY 1997 ($) 2003 ($) Change

26


Appendix 2Data Source Information

The source of data for this study is the “1997 Census ofGovernments” (COG 1997). The U.S. Census Bureau collectsfiscal and employment data on city and county governments everyfive years. The majority of the data is self-reported and voluntary.The U.S. Census Bureau did use secondary sources to obtaindata where necessary. Data from the 2002 Census ofGovernments has only recently been released (July 2004) andwas not available for use during the analysis phase of this report.Overall, the COG 1997 data is complete, but in some cases citiesfailed to answer all survey questions. Nevertheless, it representsthe most detailed source of city fiscal information available.


27

Appendix 3Fiscal and Service Data for Cities Without Property Taxes

(Column Descriptions on Page 30)

ALLARDT 640 2 2 3,000 0 63,000 0 63,000 15,000 20,000 35,000 36% 98,000

ALTAMONT 719 3 1 93,000 0 106,000 0 106,000 144,000 0 144,000 58% 250,000

ATWOOD 1,119 4 3 247,000 63,000 97,000 63,000 223,000 24,000 63,000 87,000 28% 310,000

AUBURNTOWN 259 3 3 89,000 0 63,000 0 63,000 30,000 30,000 60,000 49% 123,000

BAILEYTON 311 3 2 90,000 0 30,000 69,000 99,000 13,000 0 13,000 12% 112,000

BEERSHEBA SPRINGS 607 3 1 46,000 0 58,000 0 58,000 9,000 0 9,000 13% 67,000

BERRY HILL 789 2 2 586,000 0 985,000 4,000 989,000 0 297,000 297,000 23% 1,286,000

BLAINE 1,394 5 3 335,000 14,000 291,000 0 305,000 8,000 57,000 65,000 18% 370,000

BRADEN 335 2 2 24,000 0 310,000 0 310,000 0 0 0 0% 310,000

BURLISON 429 3 2 30,000 0 38,000 8,000 46,000 4,000 0 4,000 8% 50,000

CARYVILLE 1,975 6 5 880,000 9,000 198,000 284,000 491,000 72,000 230,000 302,000 38% 793,000

CENTERTOWN 357 1 1 15,000 2,000 55,000 0 57,000 2,000 0 2,000 3% 59,000

CLARKSBURG 342 1 1 102,000 0 27,000 0 27,000 8,000 19,000 27,000 50% 54,000

COALMONT 844 1 1 29,000 0 20,000 59,000 79,000 0 0 0 0% 79,000

CRAB ORCHARD 1,031 1 1 113,000 0 109,000 62,000 171,000 1,000 4,000 5,000 3% 176,000

CROSS PLAINS 1,242 3 2 270,000 0 92,000 88,000 180,000 37,000 85,000 122,000 40% 302,000

CRUMP 2,300 4 1 211,000 0 187,000 44,000 231,000 27,000 0 27,000 10% 258,000

DOWELLTOWN 325 2 2 30,000 0 26,000 0 26,000 0 4,000 4,000 13% 30,000

DOYLE 374 3 2 36,000 0 73,000 10,000 83,000 19,000 0 19,000 19% 102,000

EASTVIEW 596 2 1 61,000 0 86,000 0 86,000 4,000 0 4,000 4% 90,000

ENVILLE 218 2 1 21,000 0 27,000 0 27,000 1,000 0 1,000 4% 28,000

ETHRIDGE 625 3 3 262,000 0 102,000 0 102,000 6,000 222,000 228,000 69% 330,000

FARRAGUT 16,223 1 1 2,298,000 0 1,728,000 1,584,000 3,312,000 261,000 694,000 955,000 22% 4,267,000

FINGER 290 5 2 51,000 0 26,000 16,000 42,000 9,000 18,000 27,000 39% 69,000

FOREST HILLS 4,573 1 1 380,000 0 220,000 66,000 286,000 0 0 0 0% 286,000

FRIENDSVILLE 950 4 3 144,000 0 29,000 0 29,000 48,000 33,000 81,000 74% 110,000

GADSDEN 540 4 1 63,000 0 53,000 0 53,000 23,000 20,000 43,000 45% 96,000

Own-

Source

Revenue

as

Percent

of Total

Revenue

Total

Revenue

Total

Intergov

Revenue

Other

Revenue

Tax

Revenue

Total Own-

Source

Revenue

Expend-

itures

Federal

Intergov

Revenue

State

Intergov

Revenue

Local

Intergov

RevenueCity

Population

1996

Services,

Criteria 1

Services,

Criteria 2


GARLAND 211 2 1 20,000 0 26,000 0 26,000 1,000 0 1,000 4% 27,000

GILT EDGE 502 2 2 37,000 0 40,000 17,000 57,000 21,000 1,000 22,000 28% 79,000

GREENBACK 667 1 1 75,000 0 59,000 0 59,000 6,000 18,000 24,000 29% 83,000

GRUETLI-LAAGER 1,910 4 2 293,000 0 321,000 0 321,000 66,000 0 66,000 17% 387,000

GUYS 545 5 2 45,000 0 47,000 8,000 55,000 1,000 10,000 11,000 17% 66,000

HARROGATE 4,200 4 1 469,000 0 233,000 0 233,000 6,000 437,000 443,000 66% 676,000

JACKSBORO 1,711 6 5 2,219,000 0 1,434,000 219,000 1,653,000 46,000 518,000 564,000 25% 2,217,000

LAKELAND 1,275 5 4 802,000 0 216,000 486,000 702,000 106,000 145,000 251,000 26% 953,000

LAKEWOOD 2,043 5 4 645,000 0 401,000 28,000 429,000 183,000 0 183,000 30% 612,000

LOUISVILLE 986 2 2 340,000 0 175,000 41,000 216,000 94,000 31,000 125,000 37% 341,000

LUTTRELL 913 3 1 124,000 0 144,000 1,000 145,000 2,000 30,000 32,000 18% 177,000

MAYNARDVILLE 1,453 6 5 627,000 0 139,000 125,000 264,000 86,000 213,000 299,000 53% 563,000

MEDON 162 2 2 33,000 0 36,000 0 36,000 0 0 0 0% 36,000

MICHIE 727 5 3 83,000 0 99,000 0 99,000 22,000 33,000 55,000 36% 154,000

MILLEDGEVILLE 296 3 2 32,000 0 25,000 0 25,000 5,000 15,000 20,000 44% 45,000

MINOR HILL 403 5 4 204,000 0 28,000 0 28,000 163,000 1,000 164,000 85% 192,000

MONTEAGLE 1,029 5 3 343,000 0 124,000 209,000 333,000 141,000 163,000 304,000 48% 637,000

MOSHEIM 1,491 5 3 504,000 0 145,000 245,000 390,000 75,000 67,000 142,000 27% 532,000

MOUNT JULIET 7,430 6 5 3,016,000 11,000 753,000 948,000 1,712,000 633,000 2,030,000 2,663,000 61% 4,375,000

NEW MARKET 1,285 6 4 658,000 0 108,000 189,000 297,000 45,000 157,000 202,000 40% 499,000

NEW TAZEWELL 2,031 4 4 813,000 29,000 529,000 667,000 1,225,000 90,000 7,000 97,000 7% 1,322,000

OAK HILL 4,407 2 2 1,196,000 0 881,000 155,000 1,036,000 463,000 66,000 529,000 34% 1,565,000

ORLINDA 543 4 2 290,000 0 50,000 36,000 86,000 21,000 62,000 83,000 49% 169,000

ORME 173 3 2 12,000 0 14,000 0 14,000 3,000 0 3,000 18% 17,000

PALMER 799 5 3 197,000 6,000 191,000 0 197,000 128,000 97,000 225,000 53% 422,000

PARKERS CROSSROADS 175 2 2 32,000 0 19,000 0 19,000 10,000 112,000 122,000 87% 141,000

City

Population

1996

Services,

Criteria 1

Services,

Criteria 2

Expend-

itures

Federal

Intergov

Revenue

State

Intergov

Revenue

Local

Intergov

Revenue

Total

Intergov

Revenue

Other

Revenue

Tax

Revenue

Total Own-

Source

Revenue

Own-

Source

Revenue

as

Percent

of Total

Revenue

Total

Revenue

Appendix 3 (continued)Fiscal and Service Data for Cities Without Property Taxes



29

PARROTTSVILLE 127 2 1 38,000 0 156,000 1,000 157,000 4,000 12,000 16,000 9% 173,000

PEGRAM 1,755 3 3 122,000 0 206,000 0 206,000 0 82,000 82,000 28% 288,000

PHILADELPHIA 560 3 3 92,000 0 86,000 0 86,000 2,000 16,000 18,000 17% 104,000

PLAINVIEW 1,442 1 1 113,000 0 45,000 23,000 68,000 6,000 1,000 7,000 9% 75,000

PLEASANT HILL 575 2 2 81,000 0 65,000 19,000 84,000 2,000 21,000 23,000 21% 107,000

POWELLS CROSSROAD 1,196 3 1 159,000 0 261,000 16,000 277,000 22,000 0 22,000 7% 299,000

ROCKFORD 746 3 3 244,000 0 201,000 0 201,000 0 12,000 12,000 6% 213,000

RUTLEDGE 1,277 5 3 240,000 7,000 233,000 0 240,000 156,000 118,000 274,000 53% 514,000

SALTILLO 429 3 1 29,000 29,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 6% 31,000

SAMBURG 367 2 1 28,000 0 3,000 26,000 29,000 1,000 0 1,000 3% 30,000

SAULSBURY 115 2 1 17,000 0 3,000 8,000 11,000 0 15,000 15,000 58% 26,000

SILERTON 61 1 1 13,000 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 4,000 1,000 5,000 36% 14,000

SLAYDEN 127 1 1 3,000 0 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 0 0% 3,000

SNEEDVILLE 1,654 6 2 497,000 11,000 146,000 137,000 294,000 9,000 7,000 16,000 5% 310,000

SPENCER 1,171 4 3 352,000 0 287,000 0 287,000 17,000 238,000 255,000 47% 542,000

STANTONVILLE 280 4 2 21,000 0 24,000 0 24,000 6,000 3,000 9,000 27% 33,000

SUNBRIGHT 585 4 1 107,000 0 25,000 58,000 83,000 15,000 0 15,000 15% 98,000

TAZEWELL 2,314 4 3 442,000 172,000 202,000 39,000 413,000 72,000 273,000 345,000 46% 758,000

TOWNSEND 426 5 3 125,000 28,000 27,000 97,000 152,000 290,000 0 290,000 66% 442,000

TUSCULUM 2,172 5 1 300,000 0 57,000 0 57,000 87,000 35,000 122,000 68% 179,000

VIOLA 128 1 1 13,000 0 72,000 0 72,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 17% 87,000

WARTBURG 907 6 3 564,000 0 88,000 195,000 283,000 57,000 216,000 273,000 49% 556,000

WILLISTON 403 4 2 70,000 0 48,000 6,000 54,000 128,000 0 128,000 70% 182,000

WINFIELD 615 6 3 382,000 0 60,000 132,000 192,000 39,000 146,000 185,000 49% 377,000

WOODLAND MILLS 402 3 1 93,000 0 103,000 15,000 118,000 19,000 0 19,000 14% 137,000

YORKVILLE 370 3 1 32,000 0 33,000 0 33,000 4,000 23,000 27,000 45% 60,000

TOTAL 96,978 23,766,000 352,000 13,802,000 6,509,000 20,663,000 4,128,000 7,239,000 11,367,000 32,030,000

City

Population

1996

Services,

Criteria 1

Services,

Criteria 2

Expend-

itures

Federal

Intergov

Revenue

State

Intergov

Revenue

Local

Intergov

Revenue

Own-

Source

Revenue

as

Percent

of Total

Revenue

Total

Revenue

Total

Intergov

Revenue

Other

Revenue

Tax

Revenue

Total Own-

Source

Revenue

Appendix 3 (continued)Fiscal and Service Data for Cities Without Property Taxes


30


Appendix 3Fiscal and Service Data for Cities Without Property Taxes

No data for Bean Station, Coopertown, Pleasant View, Ramer, and Unicoi.

Population 1996 from 1997 Census of Governments.

Services, Criterion 1: Number of services includes fire protection, police protection, parksand recreational facilities, sanitary sewage system/water service, solid waste disposal, androad and street construction and repair. Service measured by whether or not city reportedspending any amount of money on the service.

Services, Criterion 2: Same services as Criteria 1 but service determined by whether or notcity spent a per capita amount that was equal to or exceeded 50% of the state median percapita.

Expenditures: Total amount of money spent by city. Excludes spending on utilities.

Federal Intergovernmental Revenue: Amounts received directly from the FederalGovernment for use in performing specific functions, for general financial assistance, or asshare of tax proceeds. Excludes utility revenue.

State Intergovernmental Revenue: Amounts received directly from state governmentincluding Federal aid passed through the state governmenta nd state aid channeled throughintermediate local governments (e.g., counties). Excludes utility revenue.

Local Intergovermental Revenue: Amounts received from local governments for use inperforming specific functions, for general financial assistance, or as share of tax proceeds.Excludes utility revenue.

Total Intergovermental Revenue=Sum of Federal Intergovernmental Revenue, StateIntergovernmental Revenue & Local Intergovenmental Revenue.

Other Revenue: Miscellaneous revenue which does not fall under intergovernmental revenueor tax revenue, excluding current charges, utility revenue, and insuranc trust revenue.

Tax Revenue: Defined as compulsory contributions exacted by a government for publicpurposes, other than from special assessments for capital improvements and from employeeand employer contributions or “taxes” for retirement and social insurance systems. Comprisesamounts received (including interest and penalites) from taxes (1) imposed by a governmentand collected by that government or (2) collected on its behalf by another governmentserving as its agent. Excludes all taxes specifically marked for education, highways andutilities.

Own-Source Revenue=Sum of Tax Revenue and Other Revenue

Own-Source Revenue as Percent of Total Revenue=Own-Source Revenue / Total Revenue

Total Revenue=Sum of Intergovernmental Revenue & Own-Source Revenue


31

City

Population

1996

Population

2003 City

Population

1996

Population

2003

ALLARDT 640 642 MICHIE 727 647

ALTAMONT 719 1,136 MILLEDGEVILLE 296 287

ATWOOD 1,119 1,000 MINOR HILL 403 437

AUBURNTOWN 259 252 MONTEAGLE 1,029 1,238

BAILEYTON 311 504 MOSHEIM 1,491 1,754

BEAN STATION1

N/A 2,599 MOUNT JULIET 7,430 15,610

BEERSHEEBA SPRINGS 607 553 NEW MARKET 1,285 1,234

BERRY HILL 789 674 NEW TAZEWELL 2,031 2,871

BLAINE 1,394 1,585 OAK HILL 4,407 4,493

BRADEN 335 271 ORLINDA 543 594

BURLISON 429 453 ORME 173 124

CARYVILLE 1,975 2,258 PALMER 799 726

CENTERTOWN 357 257 PARKERS CROSSROADS 175 284

CLARKSBURG 342 285 PARROTTSVILLE 127 266

COALMONT 844 948 PEGRAM 1,755 2,146

COOPERTOWN1

N/A 3,510 PHILADELPHIA 560 533

CRAB ORCHARD 1,031 838 PLAINVIEW 1,442 1,866

CROSS PLAINS 1,242 1,381 PLEASANT HILL 575 544

CRUMP 2,300 1,521 PLEASANT VIEW1

N/A 2,934

DOWELLTOWN 325 302 POWELLS CROSSROADS 1,196 1,347

DOYLE 374 564 RAMER 357 354

EASTVIEW 596 618 ROCKFORD 746 852

ENVILLE 218 230 RUTLEDGE 976 1,187

ETHRIDGE 625 536 SALTILLO 429 408

FARRAGUT 16,223 17,720 SAMBURG 367 260

FINGER 290 350 SAULSBURY 115 99

FOREST HILLS 4,573 4,710 SILERTON 61 60

FRIENDSVILLE 950 890 SLAYDEN 127 227

GADSDEN 540 553 SNEEDVILLE 1,654 1,257

GARLAND 211 328 SPENCER 1,171 1,713

GILT EDGE 502 489 STANTONVILLE 280 312

GREENBACK 667 954 SUNBRIGHT 586 577

GRUETLI-LAAGER 1,910 1,867 TAZEWELL 2,314 2,165

GUYS 545 483 TOWNSEND 426 244

HARROGATE 4,200 4,425 TUSCULUM 2,172 2,010

JACKSBORO 1,711 1,887 UNICOI2

N/A 3,519

LAKELAND 1,275 7,464 VIOLA 128 129

LAKEWOOD 2,043 2,341 WARTBURG 907 890

LOUISVILLE 986 2,066 WILLISTON 403 341

LUTTRELL 913 1,174 WINFIELD 615 911

MAYNARDVILLE 1,453 1,782 WOODLAND MILLS 402 385

MEDON 162 269 YORKVILLE 370 293

1Incoroporated in 1996, no population data available.

2 No 1996 population data available

1996 Population from Census of Governments 1997

2003 Population from Department of Economic and Community Development

Appendix 4Population of Cities Without Property Taxes, 1996 and 2003

32


Lake

Obion

Weakley

Henry

Dyer

Gibson

Carroll

Lauderdale

Crockett

Madison

Henderson

Haywood

Tipton

Shelby

Fayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Benton

Decatur

Hardin

Wayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart

Montgomery

Robertson

Dickson

Hickman

Lewis

Lawrence

Giles

Lincoln

Moore

Bedford

Maury

Marshall

Williamson

Rutherford

Cheatham

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin

Marion

Hamilton

Coffee

GrundySequatchie

Bledsoe

Van

Buren

Cannon

White

DeKalb

Putnam

Smith

Jackson

Macon

Clay

Trousdale

Overton

Fentress

Scott

Pickett

Campbell

Morgan

Cumberland

Anderson

Roane

Knox

Loudon

Blount

Monroe

Polk

BradleyMcMinn

Rhea

Meigs

Claiborne

Hancock

Hawkins

Sullivan

Union

Grainger

Sevier

Jefferson

CockeGreene

Hamblen

Washington

Johnson

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

On

e o

r m

ore

citie

s in c

ou

nty

without a p

ropert

y tax

(22 C

ounties)

42 T

ota

lC

ounties

Appendix 5Counties Containing Cities Without Property Taxes


33

Appendix 6Description of Service Criteria

COG 1997 does not report directly on what services citiesprovide. It does, however, itemize city expenditure amounts.Using expenditure data, two independent criteria were used todetermine whether or not a city provides a service.

! The first criteria (Criteria 1) evaluates whether or not citiesreported any amount of spending on a service. If a cityreported spending any amount of money on a service,they were counted as providing that service. Since everycity is given funds that are earmarked for spending onstreets, all cities were marked as having street service.

! The second criteria (Criteria 2) is more stringent andcounted cities as providing service only if the city spent acertain amount of money on the service. While any dollaramount set to determine service is arbitrary, some dollaramount had to be a benchmark in order to evaluate cityservices. The benchmark established was whether or nota city spent at least 50% of the median state per capita oneach service. Cities that did not report spending anythingon a service were excluded because the COG 1997database made no distinction between zero entries andmissing entries. The analysis calculated a median per capitaamount of spending for each service, for all cities. Thisproduced median state per capita spending on eachservice. The median value was used as a measure insteadof the average value to reduce the impact of extremevalues found in large urban cities. Each city’s per capitaexpenditure amount was then compared to the medianstate per capita value. If the city’s expenditures equaledor exceeded 50% of the median state per capita amountthe city was counted as providing the service. Since everycity is given funds that are restricted to spending on streets,all cities were marked as having street service.

Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,Authorization No. 316350; 875 copies, September 2004. Thisdocument was promulgated at a cost of $1.77 per copy.

TACIR Members

Representative Randy Rinks, ChairmanMayor Tom Rowland, Vice ChairmanHarry A. Green, Executive Director

LegislativeSenator Mae BeaversSenator Ward CrutchfieldSenator Jo Ann GravesSenator Mark NorrisRepresentative Tre HargettRepresentative Kim McMillanRepresentative Randy RinksRepresentative Larry Turner

StatutoryRepresentative Tommy Head, Chairman, Finance Ways & Means CommitteeSenator Douglas Henry, Chairman, Finance Ways & Means CommitteeComptroller John Morgan

Executive BranchPaula Davis, Department of Economic & Community DevelopmentDrew Kim, Governor’s Office

MunicipalTommy Bragg, Mayor of MurfreesboroSharon Goldsworthy, Mayor of GermantownBob Kirk, Alderman, City of DyersburgTom Rowland, Mayor of Cleveland

CountyNancy Allen, Rutherford County MayorJeff Huffman, Tipton County MayorKen Yager, Roane County MayorRichard Venable, Sullivan County Mayor

Private CitizensJohn Johnson, MorristownLeslie Shechter, Nashville

Other Local OfficialsBrent Greer, Tennessee Development District AssociationCharles Cardwell, County Officials Association Tennessee

state-shared taxes and cities without property taxes: a ... · cities without property taxes...

Documents